Summary
1. Food Waste or Surplus Production? 2. Preventive Instruments to Properly Manage Agrifood Production. 3. The Italian Legal Framework for Combating Food Waste. 3.1 The Gadda Law 3.2 Other Supporting Regulations 4. Food Waste at the Intersection of Citizens’ Rights and Public Administration Obligations.
1 Food Waste or Surplus Production?
The current political climate, in which the achievement of sustainability-related objectives has been placed at the centre of public planning, represents a crucial turning point in the implementation of measures that are completely different from the past, not only from a substantive point of view but also from an implementation standpoint.
With the European Agricultural Policy, a new model is emerging for the implementation and monitoring of measures for the agricultural sector based on performance. The overarching strategy will be defined at the European level, but it will be the Member States that devise roadmaps for achieving these objectives in National Strategic Plans that will be tailored to the needs of agricultural systems in their territories and identify key performance indicators to monitor progress.1
At the national level, the model is general enough for each State to be able to adapt the strategies it will use to achieve the Policy’s stringent sustainability objectives (social, environmental, and economic) to its own territory. In other words, governance is shifted from a top-down approach to a more local approach.2 This clarification is not negligible, when you consider the normative objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) contained in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). From the outset, agriculture has been assigned a significant place within the structure of European public policy as a productive activity of essential goods for the economic autonomy of Member States. The objectives of the CAP consist in both ensuring that the single market can guarantee internal food supply and that citizens have guaranteed access to food at a reasonable price. To guarantee adequate production in quantitative terms, and ensure market stability, the CAP further specifies adequate income for agricultural entrepreneurs and all agricultural workers.
The first approach to implementing the CAP, considering the political and economic context of the post-war period, promoted and incentivised production quantity. And, indeed, this objective was clearly expressed in several sectors.
The CAP’s initial version, aimed at encouraging quantity, had a dual nature: the presence of a structural productive surplus and its management through a series of instruments that were implemented and diversified according to the product. The management of agricultural surpluses has always represented a central issue of European agricultural policy.3 However, within the governance system of agrifood production that focused on protecting the European market, the CAP rules resulted in the production of surpluses without any specific regulation to limit them.
Over the last thirty years, the CAP has evolved by decoupling the provision of aid from production quantity, instead structuring targeted aid interventions and agricultural support. While structural overproduction has, as a result, decreased, cyclical surpluses due to various production and market variables nonetheless continue to plague the agrifood sector.
The disruptive emergence of the phenomenon of food waste is therefore a likely driver behind the EU’s more recent economic policy choices aimed at gradually shifting regulatory interventions in the agrifood production system away from the interventionist measures that characterised the initial period of the CAP. In an economic system where there are no longer interventions on price setting or on the trends of agrifood production, the sustainability of value chains is instead left to the free market. In this scenario, food waste is inevitable when one considers the peculiarities and specificities of the agrifood sector compared to other market sectors. These include production dynamics linked to the variability of agricultural supply and the rigidity of demand for agrifood products, which generate food surpluses that, if not otherwise utilised, risk becoming waste.
The CAP adopts various techniques for managing productive surpluses, relating both to supply control and demand management. In the current governance system, surplus management tools, such as the withdrawal of products from the market, are not considered first-line approaches and are typically only used for the prevention and management of crises as a safety net in specific cases.
Thus, managing food waste has become a decisive issue, particularly in lieu of the changed structure of interventions in agricultural policy. The first text specifically addressing the issue of waste in the agrifood chain, the European Declaration Against Food Waste4 dating to October 28, 2010, was followed by much consultation, study, and research aimed at adopting ad hoc measures, including legislative ones.
The Declaration first denounces the presence in the EU of 122 million citizens at risk of poverty, urging the Commission ‘to encourage Member States to take action against food waste at all levels of the food supply chain, from production to consumption.’
The generation of food waste has significant ethical and economic consequences,5 as well as health and environmental impacts, with food waste contributing considerably to global warming. In fact, the impact of food waste is so significant that it has been described as a ‘parallel sector to the productive one’, generating a considerable number of negative externalities.6 From an economic perspective, food waste represents a financial loss to farmers and increased costs to consumers. From an environmental standpoint, the inefficient use of water and land results in a serious depletion of natural resources, as well as the release of greenhouse gases (GHG s) into the atmosphere. The Declaration states that for each ton of food waste avoided, the equivalent of 4.2 tons of CO2 could be saved.
The analysis of different product types highlights that food loss varies by type of supply chain. For example, the production of fruits and vegetables is generally characterised by product losses during production (eg mechanical damage during harvesting operations) and storage (eg the short shelf life of fresh fruit and vegetables).
Considering the significant negative effects, briefly outlined above, of inefficiency in the supply chain and ambitious European goals to develop a circular economy, the fight against food waste fits squarely within the broader objectives of the 2030 Agenda and the goal of building a sustainable food system.7 The Communication on the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy contemplate combating food waste both from the perspective of seeking greater supply chain sustainability and to reduce waste.
In this context, this chapter focuses on analysing the national regulatory framework on food waste, with an eye towards the rules to prevent and/or manage its generation, both during agricultural production and in the subsequent processing, distribution, and sales phases.
Multiple factors lead to the creation of food waste: climatic events damaging harvests, the need to comply with aesthetic and quality standards, the economic disadvantage of harvesting agricultural products due to excessively low prices, and consumer behaviour. Alongside these aspects, others peculiar to the agrifood supply chain come into play, namely the structural dependence of supply on the concentration of purchasing demand and the strong market power of large-scale retail distribution (GDO).
An impact on the possible creation of food waste is also linked to the development of European legislation on food safety, insofar as it raises the quality and safety standards of agrifood products, leading to products that fall short being removed from the market. Consider, for example, non-compliant labels or unsold foods that have passed their maximum shelf life.
Thus, the transversal nature of the issue is evident, as is the need to investigate not only the regulations specifically aimed at combating the phenomenon but also the legal instruments that functionally affect the reduction of inefficiencies in the supply chain.
2 Preventive Instruments to Properly Manage Agrifood Production
Within the framework of European legal instruments introduced by the new CAP aimed at rationalising agricultural production, it is interesting to focus on the role assigned to market actors, from the perspective of preventing the creation of waste or productive surpluses.
Agricultural cooperatives have always played a central role in the management of productive surpluses and the various interventions aimed at recovering products not placed on the market. Producer Organisations (PO s) linking production and the market represent the instrument entrusted by the EU, and supported by EU law, with balancing the agricultural and purchasing enterprises. This was initially regulated through the pricing system and later through tools to discourage production, since the 1970s especially for the functioning of the fruit and vegetable sector.
PO s seek to establish market balance and stability through their assigned regulatory and operational powers. This includes functions related to market rationalisation, through the concentration of supply and production planning, and even the withdrawal of products from the market and the qualitative diversification of production, via production and marketing rules set by the PO. Therefore, PO s play a central role in preventing the creation of surpluses, insofar as they are called upon to optimise production by using production planning tools in both qualitative and quantitative terms, relative to demand.
Moreover, PO s perform other key functions related to sustainability, such as promoting the use of sustainable production methods, innovative practices, economic competitiveness, and the management and valorisation of by-products.
From a different perspective, within the framework of supply chain management, interbranch organisations, composed by farmers and processors or traders in the supply chain, also play a significant role. Among the tasks assigned to interbranch organisations, Article 157 of EU Regulation No. 1308/20138 also specifies encouraging healthy and responsible consumption, enhancing the marketability of by-products, and reducing and managing waste. Interbranch agreements, therefore, also stipulate these as objectives in line with European policies aimed, ultimately, at establishing a circular economy.
National legislation, implementing the provisions of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2117/2021, establishes the rules regarding the recognition of PO s, most recently through the Ministerial Decree of September 29, 2022.
The decree specifically defines the activities that PO s should carry out, in line with the objectives set out in the current CAP regulations. Among these, provisions concerning the destination of products withdrawn from the market are noteworthy. PO s may allocate such products to free food distribution, biomass production for energy purposes, animal feed, non-food industrial processing—including alcohol distillation—or, if these destinations are not feasible, biodegradation or composting.
Financial aid from the European Union covers all expenses incurred by the PO to withdraw products from the market and redirect them to free distribution, as long as such products are delivered to ‘[c]haritable entities recognised under national and regional legislation in the matter, accredited by paying agencies according to criteria established by AGEA and registered in the national list maintained by the same Agency’ (Article 23).
This provision is nothing more than the implementation of what is set forth in Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No. 2115/2021 regarding financial aid for fruit and vegetable products.9
Therefore, European legislation encourages the use of free food distribution in cases of market withdrawals by PO s by fully financing the related operations. This measure is particularly important considering the issues that will be discussed later concerning the role of recipient entities in Italy. Indeed, when fruit and vegetable PO s are engaged in the recovery of food products during the marketing phase, they receive specific aid to cover the expenses incurred. This aid should support them in choosing to move towards a system of redistribution of unsold products rather than disposing of them.
Structuring the agricultural production system around recognised aggregative entities within PO s establishes a proper market structure. This supports not only the profitability of all the operators involved, but also significantly contributes to achieving sustainability and circularity objectives in production.
3 The Italian Legal Framework for Combating Food Waste
Italy and France are credited with being the first countries in Europe to adopt specific laws aimed at limiting food waste, prioritising the free distribution of all foodstuffs that, for various reasons, do not reach the final consumer.
The search for a regulatory response to counter the phenomenon of food waste was accelerated by the approval of the Milan Charter, the final document of Expo 2015, an event that acted as a megaphone for the theme of ‘food’. The document focuses on the right to food and the equitable distribution of resources at the global level and examines the role various actors—namely consumers, members of civil society, and businesses—could play in helping feed the world population while respecting the environment and future development.
The Charter calls on national and international institutions to adopt legal rules that make food accessible, simplify existing food safety regulations, and adopt measures to combat food waste. It places significant emphasis on cooperation and supply chain agreements to improve the forecasting of food demand and on the need to improve production, storage, and logistics in the agrifood supply chain to minimise food waste.
3.1 The Gadda Law
On August 19, 2016, Law No. 166 titled ‘Disposizioni concernenti la donazione e la distribuzione di prodotti alimentari e farmaceutici a fini di solidarietà sociale e per la limitazione degli sprechi’ or ‘Provisions concerning the donation and distribution of food and pharmaceutical products for social solidarity purposes and to limit waste’ (also known as the Gadda Law) came into force.10 The law aims to reduce waste across the full product lifecycle: production, processing, distribution, and administration of food, pharmaceutical, and other products through the recovery and donation of food surpluses for social solidarity purposes, prioritising their use for human consumption.
It falls within the scope of interventions aimed at limiting negative impacts on the environment and natural resources by reducing waste production and promoting reuse and recycling to extend the lifecycle of products. Finally, it is consistent with the general objectives established by the National Waste Prevention Program and the National Plan for the Prevention of Food Waste.
The Gadda Law defines the goods subject to regulation, the entities called upon to act against food waste, and the methods of use of the indicated goods. Article 2 sets out certain definitions which mainly pertain to the agrifood supply chain and the scope of application of which appears to be limited to the enforcement of the law itself. Definitions are provided for food sector operators, recipient entities, food surpluses, food waste, donation, minimum conservation periods, and expiration dates.11 It is worth noting that the definitional scope does not distinguish between production surpluses in the field and industrial production waste, which are the result of different causes and subject to specific regulations. The definitions proposed by the Italian legislator, instead, find their usefulness exclusively within the logic of donation for social utility purposes.
Legally, donation is defined in Article 2, letter e) as the transfer of goods free of charge, and the provisions of Title V of Book II of the Civil Code related to validity do not apply.
The legal act consists in the completion of the transfer of goods wherein the moment in which responsibility for maintaining hygienic and sanitary requirements (Article 5) passes from donor to recipient.
Field collection of agricultural products is a different story: to comply with hygiene and food safety regulations (Article 3, para 5), the free transfer may take place directly in the field, but the harvesting and collection of agricultural products must be carried out directly by and under the responsibility of the recipient entities.
Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Gadda Law represent the core of the regulation, as they specify the methods of free transfer of food and the priority order of its use. Food sector operators may transfer food surpluses free of charge to recipient entities who may collect them directly or through third parties. Once the food is received, the recipients are required to allocate it to the needy. Article 3 specifies the priority order for the use of food surpluses: human consumption or, alternatively and exclusively for those foods unfit for human consumption, animal feed and composting.
Food sector operators may also transfer surpluses free of charge beyond the minimum conservation period, provided that the integrity of the primary packaging and appropriate storage conditions are guaranteed. Unsold finished bakery products may be donated by retailers, large-scale distribution, producers, and the catering sector within 24 hours after production.
Article 5 establishes that food sector operators who carry out transfers must adopt practices that ensure the hygienic and sanitary safety of the food. Pursuant to Law no. 155 of July 16, 2003,12 which equates recipient entities with consumers, food sector operators are responsible for the food until the moment of delivery to the recipients; they must also adopt necessary measures to prevent risks of mixing or interchanging products intended for different uses as provided by the law.
An incentive measure is contained in Article 17, which provides that municipalities may apply a proportional reduction coefficient on waste tariffs (when duly certified), based on the quantity of goods and products withdrawn from sale and donated, aiming at tax relief for those who donate food surpluses free of charge.
Eight years after the entry into force of the Gadda law, it is useful to propose some analytical observations, considering the—albeit few—data available. As previously mentioned, the regulatory approach is focused on avoiding food becoming waste and negatively impacting the environment, rather than being used for social utility purposes.
If, therefore, the tool identified by the law is donation, it is necessary to investigate the role of the involved parties. On one side are companies operating along the agrifood chain which will need to organise or reorganise their production activities to distinguish among the foods not placed or removed from the market, those suitable for free transfer. A shift towards reorganising activities is called for, though approaches will vary greatly depending on the product, whether perishable or potentially storable for a certain period. Considering the cost of internal reorganisation for companies, fiscal incentives could be further enhanced to encourage them to transition to donation.
As noted earlier, full coverage of expenses incurred for the recovery of unsold, fresh fruit and vegetables is provided if the operations are carried out by PO s. This underscores the importance of a well-structured market and the achievement of the broader objectives of the current CAP, which includes the reduction of food waste using the aggregative tools provided by European legislation. Indeed, if best practices in managing unsold fresh produce were widespread among PO s, the entire redistribution chain would benefit, with greater impact and effectiveness in meeting sustainability goals.
Public administrations, in drafting food policies or structuring regional policies to implement broader national objectives, should focus on raising awareness of the available legal tools as well as encouraging virtuous behaviours, while respecting their specific roles.
Another significant element regarding the capacity of recipient entities to intervene concerns the size of the companies involved: among Italian food processing companies, 85% of large enterprises operating in sectors such as fresh products (meat, fish, fruits and vegetables, dairy), oils, pasta, and baked goods make food donations annually, donating an average of about 332 tons of surpluses to organisations that recover them for social purposes.13 The percentage drops to 60% for medium-sized companies and falls to 52% for small processing companies.
Also interesting is the internal assignment of responsibilities related to food donations, which in most cases is jointly assigned to multiple roles (production manager, quality and food safety manager, logistics, supply chain management), while the management of surpluses by sustainability and corporate social responsibility functions appears to be much less common.
Looking ahead, the role of the third sector could be strengthened, without which the entire regulatory framework would be completely ineffective. Increasing donations without enhancing the capacity and resources of the associations involved in redistribution risks overburdening these organisations, which will only be able to collect part of the donated food, most likely the easiest to recover.14
3.2 Other Supporting Regulations
Useful regulatory tools to combat food waste are also present in other laws, which have broader systemic objectives but align with the purpose analysed here.
First among these is the National Strategy for Sustainable Development,15 approved by the Interministerial Committee for Ecological Transition on September 18, 2023. The Strategy has been updated in line with the objectives of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), particularly Mission 2—Green Revolution and Ecological Transition—and its component ‘sustainable agriculture and circular economy’. Objective 4 of the Strategy, ‘sustainable production and consumption models’, considers systemic food waste to be an indicator of waste production, thereby linking the goal of combating food waste with the goal of reducing overall waste within the framework of the circular economy model.
The National Strategic Plan, which identifies national tools for achieving CAP objectives, also includes combating food waste within its section on strategies aimed at more efficient resource use and the reuse of by-products, framed within the objectives of the circular economy, such as measures related to winemaking by-products which target the reuse of agricultural outputs.
Another central objective of the Plan is to strengthen communication about the value of sustainability for food production and certification, which are seen as fundamental to stimulating a radical change in consumer eating habits. Within this scope, the Plan foresees information campaigns targeted at operators and consumers to prevent and reduce waste.
Finally, an important tool linked to the creation of waste is the regulation of below-cost sales, defined by Article 1 of Presidential Decree No. 218 of April 6, 200116 as the:
[S]ale to the public of one or more products at a price lower than that resulting from purchase invoices increased by value-added tax and any other tax or duty related to the nature of the product and decreased by any discounts or contributions attributable to the same product.
Selling products below production cost negatively affects the market, for reasons related both to competition protection and the stability of the markets themselves. In the agrifood sector, below-cost sales pose an additional problem because they directly impact the balance of contractual relations along the supply chain and the profitability of agricultural businesses.
However, the legislator allows below-cost sales in the case of fresh and perishable food products, food products near their expiration date, and holiday- or festivity-specific products after the date or occasion of their celebration has passed (Article 2, Presidential Decree No. 2018/2001).
The same regulation related to contracts for the transfer of agricultural and food products—implementing EU Directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices along the agrifood supply chain17—permits below-cost sales of fresh and perishable agricultural and food products that remain unsold and are at risk of spoiling (Article 7, Legislative Decree No. 198/2021).18
Although these regulations belong to market regulation frameworks, the rules on below-cost sales help combat food waste in retail sales, representing a useful tool both for consumers, who benefit from lower prices, and for supply chain businesses, which avoid having to dispose of unsold products.
4 Food Waste at the Intersection of Citizens’ Rights and Public Administration Obligations
The fight against food waste is today framed within a broader regulatory context, which at the European level aims at building a sustainable ‘food system’. Recently, legal rules have been developed that, starting from the objectives of the 2030 Agenda, seek to impact the entire agrifood supply chain, introducing provisions concerning production, commercial relations among operators within the chain, and consumer information.
Actors in the agrifood supply chain are therefore responsible for complying with sustainability rules in order to steer the agrifood system towards the model the European Union has committed to implementing within the framework of international objectives.
At the same time, the role of public administrations regains central importance, especially considering the relative retreat of public guidance during the years of market globalisation. Enterprises must thus adapt their market conduct in compliance with rules increasingly affecting both their internal and external organisation, even when operating outside the EU.
From this perspective, the fight against food waste takes on a forward-looking dimension: in the absence of rules imposing a direct obligation on enterprises to act (as in the French regulatory framework, for example), the reduction of food waste will be an effect of compliance with rules aimed at structuring a sustainable food system. This outcome is further facilitated by the introduction of incentives, which, through tax relief, offer enterprises an alternative route to dispose of unsold products.
However, when framing the issue with reference to the nature of the goods involved, the fight against food waste assumes a different dimension, as it is necessarily linked to the protection of rights.
It is evident that public institutions bear responsibility for ensuring the right to food, from a dual perspective: first, with regard to the structuring of social policies aimed at safeguarding the rights of citizens; and second, with regard to the proper management of territorial policies, ranging from the protection and enhancement of rural areas to the implementation of instruments designed to intervene in local food distribution processes. Consider, for example, the proliferation of local food policies, recently translated into programmatic and regulatory documents adopted at the municipal level, which seek to support the construction of sustainable food systems based on territorial analysis. Such food policies invariably include measures to combat food waste, often grounded in the free redistribution of food.
Nevertheless, these two levels remain complementary: Member States are obligated to respect the right to food, as prescribed by the well-known Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. However, free redistribution as a tool to combat food waste cannot exhaust the array of measures implementable within the legal system, unless one accepts the paradox of a food system that must create waste to meet the social needs of indigent citizens. The protection of individual rights, rather, is far broader and can generate positive externalities and guide food systems towards a reasonable balance between territorial productive capacity and food consumption.
Bibliography
Albisinni F, ‘La nuova PAC e le competenze degli Stati membri tra riforme annunciate e scelte praticate’ [2020] (1) Rivista di Diritto Agrario 43.
Albisinni F and Costato L (eds), Trattato breve di diritto agrario italiano e comunitario (Wolters Kluwer CEDAM 2023).
Bianchi D, La politique agricole commune (PAC). Toute la PAC, rien d’autre que la PAC! (Bruylant 2006).
Busetti S, Pace N (eds), Food Loss and Waste Policy: From Theory to Practice (Routledge 2023).
Camoni D., La lotta contro lo spreco alimentare nel diritto comparato [2023] (2) Rivista di diritto alimentare 5.
Canfora I, ‘Agenda 2030, agricoltura e alimentazione’ in Borghi P, Canfora I, Di Lauro A, Russo L (eds), Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione europea (Giuffrè 2024) 25.
Cappelli E and Ventura S, ‘Problemi giuridici dell’agricoltura comunitaria’ [1964] III Rivista di Diritto Agrario 4.
Costantino L, ‘La proposta di legge contro gli sprechi alimentari: analisi ed inquadramento sistematico’ in [2016] 2 Dir. Agroalimentare 401 ff.
Costantino L, La problematica degli sprechi nella filiera agroalimentare (Cacucci 2018).
Costantino L, Profili giuridici dei sistemi produttivi agroalimentari locali nell’era della sostenibilità (Giappichelli 2024).
Costato L, ‘Il 2 ° piano Mansholt e la legislazione agraria italiana’ [1972] I Rivista di Diritto Agrario 219.
De Caterini P, ‘Politiche comunitarie, I) Politica agricola’, Enciclopedia Giuridica (1998).
González Vaqué L, ‘Food loss and waste in the European Union: a new challenge for the Food law?’ [2015] 1 European Food and Feed Law Review 20.
Iannarelli A, ‘Il diritto agrario comunitario alla fine degli anni ottanta’ in Snyder FG, Diritto agrario della Comunità Europea (Lefebvre Giuffré 1990) 171.
Lattanzi P, ‘La transizione verso un sistema alimentare sostenibile nel Green Deal’ in Borghi P, Canfora I, Di Lauro A, Russo L (eds), Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione europea (Giuffrè 2024).
Maccioni G, ‘La legislazione sugli sprechi alimentari’ in Borghi P, Canfora I, Di Lauro A, Russo L (eds), Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione europea (Giuffrè 2024) 888.
Masini S and Rubino V (eds), La sostenibilità in agricoltura e la riforma della PAC (Cacucci 2021).
McMahon JA, EU Agricultural Law (OUP 2008).
Olmi G, ‘Agricoltura in diritto comunitario’, Digesto delle Discipline pubblicistiche (1987) 118.
Olmi G, ‘Common organization of agricultural markets at the stage of the single market (1967) 5 Common market law review 359.
Garrone P, Randellini N, Scotti G, Valentini G, Indagine sulle eccedenze e sullo spreco alimentare in Italia: l’industria della trasformazione alimentare, (Fondazione Banco Alimentare 2023).
Reynolds C, Boulding A, Pollock H, Sweet OBEN, Ruiz J, Draeger de Teran T, Halving Food Loss and Waste in the EU by 2030: the major steps needed to accelerate progress (WWF-WRAP 2020).
Snyder FG, Diritto agrario della Comunità Europea (Lefebvre Giuffré 1990).
Trapè I, ‘Lo spreco alimentare e la legge italiana n.166 del 2016’ [2017] 2 Rivista di Diritto Agrario 263.
Stefano Masini and Vito Rubino (eds), La sostenibilità in agricoltura e la riforma della PAC (Cacucci 2021); Ferdinando Albisinni, ‘La nuova PAC e le competenze degli Stati membri tra riforme annunciate e scelte praticate’ [2020] (1) Rivista di Diritto Agrario 43; Stefano Masini, ‘Pianificazione nazionale e ruolo di Stato e Regioni nell’ottica della nuova PAC’ in Stefano Masini, Vito Rubino (eds) (n 1), 39.
Laura Costantino, Profili giuridici dei sistemi produttivi agroalimentari locali nell’era della sostenibilità (Giappichelli 2024).
Francis G Snyder, Diritto agrario della Comunità Europea (Lefebvre Giuffré 1990); Antonio Iannarelli, ‘Il diritto agrario comunitario alla fine degli anni Ottanta’ in ibid, 171; Luigi Costato, ‘Il 2 ° piano Mansholt e la legislazione agraria italiana’ [1972] (1) Rivista di Diritto Agrario 219; Ferdinando Albisinni and Luigi Costato (eds), Trattato breve di diritto agrario italiano e comunitario (4th ed Wolters Kluwer—CEDAM 2023); Paolo De Caterini, ‘Politiche comunitarie, I) Politica agricola’, Enciclopedia Giuridica (1998); Emilio Cappelli and Sergio Ventura, ‘Problemi giuridici dell’agricoltura comunitaria’ [1964] III Rivista di Diritto Agrario 4; Joseph A McMahon, EU Agricultural Law (OUP 2008); Danièle Bianchi, La politique agricole commune (PAC). Toute la PAC, rien d’autre que la PAC! (Bruylant 2006); Giancarlo Olmi, ‘Agricoltura in diritto comunitario’, Digesto delle Discipline pubblicistiche (1987) 118; ibid, ‘Common organisation of agricultural markets at the stage of the single market’ (1967) 5 Common market law review 359.
Specific attention to the issue of food waste within European policies is found in the ‘European Parliament Resolution of 19 January 2012 on how to avoid food wastage: strategies for a more efficient food chain in the EU’ (2011/2175(INI)) and the ‘European Parliament Resolution of 16 May 2017 on initiative on resource efficiency: reducing food waste, improving food safety’. It is further affirmed as a target for future European policy actions (2016/2223(INI)), as stated in the Conclusions of the EU Council, 10730/16 of 28 June 2016, ‘Food Losses and Food Waste’, where it is explicitly recognised that the cross-cutting nature of the issue necessitates action throughout the entire agrifood chain. The recent acknowledgement by European institutions of the need to address food waste challenges is situated within the broader context of European measures related to the circular economy, including: the Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, COM(2011)571 final, dated 20 September 2011; the Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe’, COM(2014)398 final, dated 2 July 2014; and Decision No. 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020, ‘Living Well, Within the Limits of Our Planet’. Upon closer examination, the pursuit of greater efficiency along the agrifood chain—from the standpoint of both agricultural enterprise profitability and the long-term stability of food prices for the final consumer—has long been the subject of study by European institutions. However, the absence of a comprehensive vision encompassing the various, specific challenges of the supply chain has led to the adoption of sectoral measures which, while successful in focusing attention on the most vulnerable aspects of the chain, suffer from a lack of overall coherence. Indicatively, on the same day—19 January 2012—two separate European Parliament Resolutions were adopted: the first, as mentioned, on strategies to prevent food waste, and the second on imbalances in the food distribution chain (following the Commission Communication on the better functioning of the food supply chain in Europe, COM(2009)591), with no cross-reference between the two documents. The quest for greater efficiency in the agrifood chain cannot disregard the efficient management of natural resources, fair remuneration of agricultural producers, and balanced contractual relationships along the chain, all within a global perspective. For a more detailed analysis, Laura Costantino, La problematica degli sprechi nella filiera agroalimentare (Cacucci 2008).
FAO, Food wastege footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary report (Rome 2013).
Luis Gonzàlez Vaqué, ‘Food loss and waste in the European Union: a new challenge for the Food law?’ [2015] 10 European Food and Feed Law Review 20.
Irene Canfora, ‘Agenda 2030, agricoltura e alimentazione’ in Paolo Borghi and others (eds), Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione europea (Giuffrè 2024) 25; Pamela Lattanzi, ‘La transizione verso un sistema alimentare sostenibile nel Green Deal’ in Paolo Borghi and others (eds), Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione europea (Giuffrè 2024) 29. With specific reference to the topic, see Gioia Maccioni, ‘La legislazione sugli sprechi alimentari’ in Paolo Borghi and others (eds), Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione europea (Giuffrè 2024) 888. More general, Christian Reynolds and others, ‘Halving Food Loss and Waste in the EU by 2030: the major steps needed to accelerate progress’ (WWF-WRAP 2020).
Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 of European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (EEC) 922/72, (EEC) 234/79, (EC) 1037/2001 <1234/2007, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1308&qid=1750872222899> accessed 24 June 2025.
Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R2115&qid=1750873584465> accessed 24 June 2025.
Legge 19 agosto 2016, n. 166, Disposizioni concernenti la donazione e la distribuzione di prodotti alimentari e farmaceutici a fi ni di solidarietà sociale e per la limitazione degli sprechi, Gazzetta ufficiale n. 202 del 30 agosto 2016 <https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2016/08/30/202/sg/pdf> accessed 24 June 2025.
For a detailed analysis of the legislative text, see Anna I Trapè, ‘Lo spreco alimentare e la legge italiana n.166 del 2016’ [2017] 2 Rivista di Diritto Agrario 263; Laura Costantino, ‘Proposta di legge contro gli sprechi alimentari: analisi e inquadramento sistematico’ [2016] 2 Diritto Agroalimentare 401; Laura Costantino, La problematica degli sprechi nella filiera agroalimentare (Cacucci 2018) chapter 3, part II.
Legge 25 giugno 2003, n. 155, Disciplina della distribuzione dei prodotti alimentari a fini di solidarietà sociale, Gazzetta ufficiale n. 150 del 1 luglio 2003, <https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2003/07/01/150/sg/pdf> accessed 24 June 2025.
Paola Garrone and others, Indagine sulle eccedenze e sullo spreco alimentare in Italia: l’industria della trasformazione alimentare, (Fondazione Banco Alimentare 2023).
A valuable comparative perspective on the various experiences in combating food waste is offered in Simone Busetti and Noemi Pace (eds), Food Loss and Waste Policy: From Theory to Practice (Routledge 2023); Daniele Camoni, ‘La lotta contro lo spreco alimentare nel diritto comparato’ [2023] 2 Rivista di diritto alimentare 5.
The strategy constitutes the national reference framework for environmental and territorial planning, programming, and assessment processes. It implements Article 34 of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006.
Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 6 aprile 2001, n. 218, Regolamento recante disciplina delle vendite sottocosto, a norma dell’articolo 15, comma 8, del decreto legislativo 31 marzo 1998, n. 114, in GU n.134 del 12-06-2001, <https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2001/06/12/134/sg/pdf> accessed 24 June 2025.
Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0633&qid=1750874431811> accessed 24 June 2025.
Decreto Legislativo 8 novembre 2021, n. 198, Attuazione della direttiva (UE) 2019/633 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 17 aprile 2019, in materia di pratiche commerciali sleali nei rapporti tra imprese nella filiera agricola e alimentare nonché dell’articolo 7 della legge 22 aprile 2021, n. 53, in materia di commercializzazione dei prodotti agricoli e alimentari, in GU n.285 del 30-11-2021—Suppl. Ordinario n. 41, <https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2021/11/30/285/so/41/sg/pdf> accessed 24 June 2025.